tv Governments Role in Start Up Businesses and Innovation CSPAN January 25, 2014 5:20pm-6:22pm EST
>> ok, i think folks are trickling in, so we will get started though we do not go over. welcome, everyone to our startup innovation and policy panel. when i tweeted about this panel, mark cuban favorited it, so this is a really big discussion. we hope what we will accomplish with the panel has ramifications for all businesses, whether they are small brick-and-mortar, tech businesses. hopefully it is a wide-ranging conversation, and we are looking forward to it. what i am going to do, i like to put a face to the name. i will have every panelist introduced themselves. two minutes about your company and what you're doing. we will start with clara. >> hello, everyone.
i'm clara bronner -- brenner from tumil. we work with companies like hand up which is a crowd standing -- funding tool for the homeless. we offer them to do funding, mentorship, anything to help their businesses grow and scale to cities across the u.s. >> hi, chet kanojia. i am the founder of -- founder and ceo of aereo, an online television platform. >> david liebner. i have lived in las vegas for 17 years. i have a small technology company here. we have built seven platforms. currently i am the founder and ceo of itsonme, which is a mobile lifting -- gifting
platform. we allow global revenue to be spent locally. we allow people to break down the barriers of geographical regions. if you want to buy your buddy a drink in new york and it is his birthday, you can do so now. >> hello, everyone. my name is mara lewis. i am the ceo and founder of the company called stopped at. i am also the managing director of upstart, based in memphis, tennessee. >> hello, i am jake schwartz, the cofounder and ceo of general assembly. our vision is to build a global community of
individuals empowered to pursue what they love, and we do that through three main ways. we give best in class training and practical skills to help people be competitive in the 21st century, we provide access to opportunities that give people confidence, skills, and freedom in one's career. we do that in the context of a network of active shooters, -- practictioners, entrepreneurs, and other businesses. we are mutually invested in each other's success. we have eight campuses around the world. and we are growing even more next year and the year after that. we have lots of exciting programs and web development in ux design, product management, data science, digital marketing, and we also offer a lot of those same programs for fortune 500 companies as well as an internal
capability to link tool. -- building tool. >> hi, there. i'm josh mendelsohn. thanks for joining us today. i'm wearing two hats. one is my day job as a vc in san francisco. before that, i was a political hack and a coder. but i am one of those who helped to cofound an organization called engine. engine is a nonprofit that focuses on helping to represent the voices of startups and entrepreneurs in government. it is an organization with about 500 members all over the country. we spent a lot of time helping educate members of congress and their staff on various issues. they are doing it all at the state and local level. i hope to get some of your insight into the issues that are impacting your companies across the country, and even here in nevada.
>> i want to remind you, if you are going to tweet about the panel, please feel free to use the ces2014 hashtag, but also, i'm sure you've seen it --ips2014, because these are policy panels. what is the single most powerful thing the government could do to encourage innovation? >> i guess i would say keep an open mind. be creative, entrepreneurial. think about how we could potentially work in your community. the example i would throw out as rockford, illinois. a year ago the mayor approached etsy, which is an online
platform for crafts and trades. rockford had high in employment, but a history of manufacturing. the mayor said, how can we think of interesting ways to repurpose these skills that our community already has? they created a program alongside etsy to teach members of the community how to use skills they already have, to essentially become etsy sellers. that's not something you would think about off the bat. i would just throw that out there. >> the question was? >> in your opinion, what is the single most powerful thing the government can do to encourage innovation at the start up level? >> i'm not sure they can do much. probably a little bit around the idea of bandwidth to me. especially anytime you look at
companies like ours or other technology companies, cheap internet access is probably the best thing they could do. >> not much? >> not really. silicon valley and has shown as there is no shortage of great ideas or great people to create those ideas. so, two things. financial policy and regulation. regulatory policy. if they would get one of them right it would be beneficial to us. 99% of all businesses are killed through a lack of -- the lack of capital. the government could put policies in place to look at patent control. they could look at financial and regulatory policies. >> your expectations are low?
>> they have to look at financial policy. >> ok. >> i think growing entrepreneurs is something the government could really assist with. getting involved with startups in d.c., it is complicated. however in powering entrepreneurship, teaching individuals to take their ideas to the next level, how to implement them, how to apply for various accelerator programs -- i think the government can help by creating nonprofits for local communities and governments. so, individual cities and how states can create workshops and environments where people with ideas can come in, learn, get access not just to monetary resources, but mentors and team members. a lot of this is happening organically in high growth potential cities. however there's a lot of places in the united states where this is not happening.
you can have hackathons, workshop processes. who do i need to work with? i think those are fundamental skill sets. i think that is definitely something the government could help with at a local level. they can step away and let the governments create their own partnerships. that would be really valuable. >> i think when you talk about government, you can think of it as a bunch of different types. you have cities, states, national government. a different policy organizations as a part of that. there are a lot of stakeholders and a lot of different interests. i think each level, the way they can help drive innovation are totally different.
we have been lucky to meet with tons of different government leaders at all different levels. i have had meetings with crazy ukrainian oligarchs who want to know how to make facebook happen in kiev. right? it's funny. everybody wants to be silicon valley. what i tell them is silicon valley is a 20th century concept. the future is about -- it is decentralized, deglobalized. there will be hubs and clusters that happen all over the place. from our perspective at ga, we think that talent is one of the biggest drivers of the clustering. local stakeholders especially -- in the federal can help by fostering the process and getting out of the way. making sure you are enacting policies at all different levels to make sure your town or state is a great home and a magnet for great talent. that also involves
making sure the people are retrained for the 21st-century, making sure that people have the skills that are needed for those industries that build employees. one of the general assembly's main purposes is to do that. that is one of the reasons why our second city after new york was not san francisco. that was london. that was sending the message this is a global phenomenon. we have individuals that are overeducated and underemployed in all of the cities all around the world. >> i think my fellow panelists have made a lot of good points. what i would say as an overarching theme is smart regulation. governments want to protect their citizens. there's a lot to understand the contours of the law and what that would mean. what we try to do as part of
engine is make a connection with the latest developments. the things you are seeing on the show floor here. what that means for regulatory policy, what would happen now or in the future. what you are seeing now is becoming mainstream. the things that we care about now, as a set of entrepreneurs, we talk about this working for i.t., clean tech, a lot more i.t. so the internet. that creates a lot more issues we spent time thinking about. you already see ideas on copyright. there are more coming. also ideas like patents. most importantly, it is talent. we believe immigration plays a large role in that. we also think things like taxation policy and how we are thinking of a greater reform to things like digital privacy,
digital due process. they all really matter. what you are going to hear is this general notion of government matters. it is here. it is not going away. government is fundamentally good, i think a lot of people would want to argue. ultimately it is all of us working hand-in-hand to say how can we take protective measures for citizens while at the same time allowing them to have the best service possible through innovation and invention? consequently, that is where we are headed. i think we will spend time talking about patents and immigration, which are two very real issues at both the federal and state levels. we are seeing smart regulation being talked about. we are seeing good policies put in place. >> i feel like you are wiggling? [laughter] >> we work with a lot of specifically focused entrepreneurs. they have identified priorities
but they have been unsuccessful solving on their own. i think a lot of people are interesting and promoting government as the font of great ideas for entrepreneurs. we have not want that to be the case. where they excel is working as a pr group for startups. the chief innovation officers, chief technology officers of the cities get a lot of hype right now and are not the ones identifying new capital for startups and they are not the ones connecting them to important policy wonks or regulators to help them navigate the complicated space. what they are good at is sending tweets. i do not mean that in a negative way. they do add a lot of legitimacy to people coming up with unusual business models. we have a startup called handup, which is crowned -- crowd funding for homeless, which is an unusual idea.
when people in the community started asking what is the city doing to think creatively about solving these problems. i'm sure many of you have heard that san francisco has problems and that space. he was able to point to handup. >> i feel like it is important to say -- one of the notions i find a lot of entrepreneurs will accidentally adhere to is the idea that government should get out of the way. government does not have a role here. it can't help. it can only hurt. i am of the belief that is pretty naïve. in our portfolio, we help early on bringing entrepreneurs to d.c. what we are finding great staff
who to understand the technologies. they just do not understand yet what regulations are in place that keep the growth from occurring. it is hard to say what you don't know or what does not exist yet. at the same time, playing with these examples, you can look at companies that are as sophisticated as possible, and having engaged more municipalities early on, changing that space. the same goes for housing. at the same time -- i will actually point to jake and ga. they are really great at coming into cities and being ambassadors. that really helps where you then find that instead of political officials worrying about the regulation, they are instead worrying about sitting down and finding out what doors they can open.
>> i don't think you can ignore government. government is a stakeholder at the table. it has to be part of your plan. especially when you're going after entrenched industries. uber is fighting a municipal monopoly, right? aereo. how is the fcc doing for aereo? [laughter] deeply entrenched monopolies and shaking them up. when that happens, monopolies do not take that lightly. they have invested tons of money in governmental relations. uber is crazy at doing that. they have been very successful. the interesting thing as a startup, having to be that smart about your public policy.
i have a head of public policy. >> how old are you guys? >> we are three years old. i'm just saying, that is the new era. if you want to play these industries that are involved in building something really meaningful, it's probably incumbent that you have to disrupt. you are going to have to have people on your side of the governmental level. >> government -- to me, the question of government is policy. policy is not a short-term issue. policy takes generations to take effect. if i do a quick poll here, how many people are in the sinus -- sciences or engineers or tech people? how many on the panel? so, there is sort of the problem, writes? -- right? we know the knowledge economy is driven by scientific creativity
in some form. we culturally do not encourage that. there are not enough kids. on top of that we have immigration problems. even if we fixed immigration in its current form, what would you have? 2000 or 3000 people coming in? we need millions. >> policy has antiquated. uber and these guys asked for forgiveness before they asked for permission. then they got traction and got into the infrastructure and municipalities -- >> but they had the government on their side? >> sure. but they had to break all the rules and create and be entrepreneurial. government has to create the way through policy, through patent reform, through financial resources to be able to create
these businesses and break the rules through antiquated models. we are a mobile gifting platform. uber was breaking into taxicabs -- they have so many relationships in power, it's hard to get past them. i have taken possession of that fear. the model is antiquated in our eyes. it is a digital gift card. there are a lot of policies that are in place that need to be brought up to date. >> more engineers and less lawyers. that will fix the problem. [laughter] >> in terms of education, i think there's a fundamental lack of people in general in stem fields. it's a problem everywhere, whether you are in san francisco
or memphis, tennessee. you have to find the talented individuals to build the systems, the hardware. there is a serious lack. in terms of understanding this law, that is the place the government can step in and say at a high school level, why is this not part of the curriculum? why is it a 100% requirement to memorize the periodic table, but there is no understanding of what html is? people are using these applications as part of their regular lives and are completely missing a regular understanding of how the things they are engaging with actually work. i think if we can leverage the government to get more curriculum into the schools at an earlier age, earlier time, we will see changes in terms of maintaining and growing talent in america and in our own country.
again, i think immigration reform is really important and something we are taking steps towards working on. i think we have to think about what are we doing here to foster changes and drive them forward? that is really in the stem fields. i would love to see computer science as one of these science options in a high school curriculum or a language option. >> if you have the government choose two choices to force different curricula into schools to teach kids to be more engineering mindset or they created financial opportunities for investors and people to create more startups and be more entrepreneurial, who is going to teach more kids how to be engineers? i start a startup that has access to capital they can teach millions of people to code and create an app or program. forget the school system.
people will find that opportunity and take advantage of that opportunity for themselves. >> in a way you are describing ga's model. we are not accredited. people cannot take massive subsidized loans for our programs. at the same time, people are signing up in droves. and it seems to me, what we are talking about -- we are talking about the pace of change. it's incredibly fast. accelerating every day. this infrastructure for the government is not really designed to deal in that kind of timeline. they are just not set up for that. they barely kept up with electricity as part of the acceleration of time. as you think about that, it is about understanding, you have the stakeholder that is really slow, really lumbering, the
hold into a lot of entrenched interests. how do you deal with them that helps you get what you want which is more innovation? >> i'm curious why everybody is citing uber as an example. they have made a name for themselves as being especially adversarial. obviously they have had relationships with different municipalities, but uber has taken it upon themselves. in my mind, a lot of the startups that we hold up to work with our entrepreneurs have taken a much different approach. obviously some of that is asking for forgiveness and going direct to the consumer because you do need them to advocate on your behalf. but i think there are other examples of startups that have done a better job of collaborating and been more successful because of it. >> i think they are different negotiation strategies, whether you will be aggressive or
collaborative area that is what your leverages and what you need to have happen. >> that seems to be the central question of the panel. do you work with government? do you collaborate with them initially? or do you take a battering ram to the door? and once you are in, you start negotiating. >> asking for permission. that would be death to most start up companies to ask for permission. it would be almost impossible. >> i agree with you there. part of white engine was created -- so full disclosure there -- but it was -- part of white engine was created -- so full disclosure there -- but it was to help startups. fundamentally they realize they will create jobs and they do. those stats bear themselves out time and time again. engine has amazing economic stats.
it has produced work voluminously. when you go in and explain, this is what we're trying to build. this is how we can create opportunity, you do find a willingness to engage. i think there are many good examples we don't talk about as much. we do not talk about how square foot a lot of efforts to get into taxicabs as an experiment to see how that would go. you could say that about the mobile payment industry broadly. i think uber, and they are an engine member, they get a bad rap. some geographic entries they may not have handled as well. for everyone, there are three geographies they went to that went really, really smoothly. that said, i was in a horrible line for a shuttle. i said, man, i really want and
-- uber. i went to the app. it was a neat little prompt. it said "hey, are you at ces? wish you could get an uber? here's why." now they were letting me know i could not have their survey. -- their service. that was fairly lightweight. in defense of uber -- the more you engage, the better result you're likely to have. there is, let's just say, and adversarial process that yields terrible dividends on both sides. >> i would agree with that. the biggest gift that startups have been given, in government
circles, maybe all the way up to federal, there is a conventional wisdom that tech and startups and innovation is the path forward and it will save the economy. >> it is true. >> it is true. but it has become a dogmatic belief in a way, which means when you come in and you have the conversation that says, i'm doing something different. this is really interesting. here's a potential press release for you about how you are promoting innovation in your community -- they will listen. that is something you can use greatly to your benefit if you understand that is the framework people are working with. that's not to say that they -- that there are not entrenched interests that will try to oppose you and find ways. you know, a good friend of mine, paul friedman, had a startup that was trying to -- it was
essentially to create the -- replace the 3-d college program -- the community college program. to get accredited, they had to partner with a nonprofits accredited university in ohio. the accreditation body, which is not a government body, but a commission of entrenched interests -- the trade association of incumbents look at that and actually decided with no warning, no communication to shut the entire startup down. they raise $30 million. had 200 employees. it just went from eventually having a valuation of $100 million to zero in a week. and without any governmental oversight, without anything. it was able to do that. there are these nightmare scenarios. as an investor, entrepreneur, you have to be aware of that. not everyone is going to be on your side. you have to fight for survival.
a lot of times, it involves getting advocates inside government. it also involves being really aware of who will be for you and who will be against you. >> it is not usually that, at least in our experience, that regulators are close-minded. they are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. i had a friend who was trying to fill out her transient form, and she had air b&b. she did not know how to fill out the form, because it asks for her hotel. i do not think anyone would deny that air b&b offers a lot to different communities. how do you accommodate that? it is not like they do not want to pay their taxes.
that stuff is not taken into consideration. >> i want to go back to this question of talent. talent capital, -- you all have said talent and capital -- >> and regulation. >> talent, capital, and regulation. is there some merit to the idea that government can help incubate talent? i heard you, david, say let startups do that. so, is there a place, do you think? is there a place where government can go beyond pr, maybe do some things to help incubate at-home talent? since immigration reform alone will not come close. >> a policy that fosters entrepreneurship. i mean, if the local investor who is investing in real estate
or a bar or restaurant or some high risk opportunity has a tax incentive that would allow them to create jobs and an opportunity for the community, if those tax incentives were there or policies were there for that person to do so. to start a downtown project or salt lake or memphis or all these different places to allow people who are in these communities, who influence those communities now to be more part of creating new businesses and jobs and new offices -- >> what about your employees? i assume you do not want to hire just any entrepreneur -- >> sure. >> what about those that are not entrepreneurs?
>> i think the talent goes where the opportunity is. if people are going to unlv and getting degrees, but the opportunity is at san francisco, local government has to create the opportunities. especially if they are getting loans in nevada to go to school in nevada and going to san francisco to pay off those loans, there needs to be better policy to create talent, foster talent, and keep that talent at home. >> i think innovation in general is not balanced -- bound by geography. i live in san francisco. i go to memphis once a month. we have an abundance in san francisco. the resources are not just their in other parts of the country. there are hubs that have investments in accelerators and mentors being a huge one as well
-- there is a big draw for companies and innovators to go to the technology and innovation hubs. like i said, it's happening everywhere. you have the angels and local, high risk companies. this is a big thing. to go to people who have made angel investors in the community, to potentially invest in startup companies, why you should invest in a in a tech space, it's a whole new conversation happening. i think this is a place where government can come in and creates different incentives -- government can come in and create incentives. maybe investing outside your comfort zone. out of boston, austin, chicago.
putting government grants into local communities and saying "build your ecosystem." let's do this thing. we need to distribute the resources financially broader, not just vc firms. i think that is definitely 100% an area people should get involved in. there are so many talented entrepreneurs. there are lots of startups. there's revenue. traction. they can go to an accelerator. there is a calculated risk to get those resources.
what happens to the entrepreneur's vision? they have a dream for the company, but cannot know where to start. i think that's where the government can create these local incubator accelerator workshops where people can come i and and build entrepreneur -- entrepreneurship across the country from the ground up. >> i think the u.s. has done a phenomenal job of creating a positive environment. i don't know if people remember or recall -- in the late 1970s, government regulations give rise to scale venture capital. there was a gross amount of misuse. the tax interest and capital gains is absolutely ridiculous. the logic just does not add up.
the government has done is a tremendous amount from the incentive perspective. what we keep coming back to is there's no talent. talent is -- two things. capital and talent. there is a ton of capital out there. there is no shortage of capital. there is a shortage of talent. >> wait. >> i think the challenges, with all due respect to our capitalistic systems, government institutions creates scale impact. i come from a model where in the ninth grade you pick your discipline and you had to excel or die and that was that. >> when you talk about talent now -- speaking about what new york city has done so well with the bloomberg administration, there are three things they pushed hard for.
they pushed for broadband, obviously. you can go to another country. it is embarrassing. you do not realize until you go to another country how bad the u.s. broadband structure is. they've done a lot with real estate. there is a lot around fostering that. then it is around talent. and they have done things like launch buses. m.i.t. getting more kids to graduate to come to new york. this is about more liquidity for the ecosystem. the raw inputs that they can use to create whatever they're going to create. they are not picking winners. they are not trying to hold somebody's hand. they are trying to give a little helping hand. i think one of the biggest -- one of the things the federal government has done in the last
year is obamacare. there are two major things. all of these kids under 26 can be on their health care -- their parents health care plan and start a business. that is huge. and there are changes where you can for 200 bucks a month by on to a health care plan. that leads to interesting organizations and startups and new pools of talent. i think -- as we think about that, health care is one of them. education is a much longer battle. we're talking about school districts that are fragmented. each of them is basically governed separately. that is not an easy battle. a lot of innovation will come outside the system. when a product is better, you can go out and buy it and that is a beautiful thing. >> access to funding and the amount of talent available
varies dramatically depending on the sector. if you work with urban impact entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, we get two thirds of the talent cool from not the bay area. -- the talent cool from not the bait -- the talent pool from not the bay area. we did a study of entrepreneurs a year ago. about a third qualified is what we would identify as urban active entrepreneurs. there's a huge disparity. a lot of it has to do with the fact that they are creating not physical products or services or they're working in the new economy business which investors are more reticent to take on. yes, invest your money is out there. in terms of where it is being
erected, i do not think it is being spread is -- evenly across the ecosystem. when you think about the community, i think creating -- taking into consideration the investors your partnering with is really important as well. >> identifying all of these concepts, i think there is a success/failure story worth sharing. so much ingenuity talent and innovations have come from public universities and one grant universities. and for work they -- and for years they had major innovations. they were graduating grad students who went out to innovate and invent even in private industry. what we have found of late, many of those same institutions have set up licensing component that have really quashed the ability for talent there to continue to want to invest with the university system.
we forget this. the university of illinois deserves a ton of credit for the browser and the internet as it were. when you look at the pace and rate of animation, it changes dramatically. patent control -- sure, it's really wonky. there is government interaction even in that space. i use that as a segue to say we are educating people in public institutions. but we are not educating people and allowing them to stay in this country. it is the proverbial handing them a diploma and asking them to leave. there's a lot of will to see immigration reform occur, but not a lot of way. then coming off of that though, we have to then remember, in a lot of these metros, again, let's talk about where we are in nevada.
we know for jobs are created every time you hire someone in the high-tech sector. you have a lot of ability to generate wilson responsibilities and abilities far beyond computer science or mech-e or e-e or whatever it is. you are able to create an entire population with these jobs. there is the short term in the long term. the short term is we need immigration reform. we need it now. there's a time of talent we are sending out of this country. there is a ton of talent that wants to come into this country that can't. then we need to think about public education. the government fundamentally is at the core of our public education system and how does this industry work with the government to help it better adapt to market conditions?
one of the comfortable examples, why don't we let the market determine demand? personally, i think is a lot of truth to that, but we all know it's not that simple. there are things set up to perhaps avoid short-term market situations. we need to take a step back and say, ok, what have public universities done for us? what are some of those great stories? how do we allow them to work for us? then you can find that a rising tide really does float all boats. >> i'm really proud of us, because we have not talked about patent stuff, but there is only 10 minutes left, so i kind of think we should. in this scheme of talent and capital where the patent issues lie, how terrifying is it for a start up immunity in general -- community in general?
[indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] >> it used to be it was talent and access to capital. over the last few years, we have had patent trolls. the trolls have found a business model. for them, it's a very viable is this model. just a quick summary. patent trolls tend to be nonpracticing entities that have acquired intellectual property is, perhaps a defunct company. oftentimes patents are very broad. not well defined. they can apply to lots of different things. and they have built up business out of sending demand letters to companies large and small, from fortune 100 to small mom and pops, and said some very scary letters that essentially say, we
know you have a scanner that allows you to e-mail yourself a scanned document. you have violated our patent. coffee shop owner, we know you have free wi-fi to rid you are violating our rights. what tends to happen, they will settle. there's no way to look at it -- this is extortion. it has become an ever increasing scourge. one of the worst examples we have found is in fact -- well, actually, maybe it's not even the worst. but there are bad ones every day. this may ring a bell for some of
the folks here. thousands of demand letters were sent. oftentimes when you have to settle, you have a confidentiality clause associated with it. you can't talk about it. you can't share. so, it's hard to know that thousands of these demand letters went out. maybe people fell for it for a couple hundred bucks, but a couple hundred bucks adds up. >> do you think that that is a deterrence to an entrepreneur? how urgent is patent reform? i bet you're going to say something? >> i have not paid anything -- any attention to the issue. i do know a little bit about litigation. the issue, the structural problem we face is not necessarily just patent laws. the problem is most of us cannot afford, in a typical patent litigation which runs 15, 20 million bucks. something in that range. not many companies can't afford that.
i have not paid attention to the whole patent troll issue as one should. i have been lucky. >> it depends on the stage of entrepreneur or you're talking about. early-stage entrepreneurs we work with do not think about that. they're too busy trying to figure out how to hire somebody and water local regulations. to be honest the majority of regulations they deal with our municipal or regional and they're not thinking about things like patent. it is not to say it is not important. but they are not thinking about it and it is not deterring them. maybe from growing the company, but not starting it. >> something i worry about is what the overall exposure is. maybe my partners and i are to wonky, but we actually watch the patent filings to see what we need to avoid. or at least be careful about it. yeah, sector does matter to some
extent. it's when it starts hitting our users that is really freaky. because that is not then just about our company. that is about those millions of people using the product. >> if the government created better opportunities for businesses to protect themselves from the patent trolls, or would be a way for them to fight back. i would think, you would have a plan, maybe a 10-year plan. you would save up a certain amount of money and open up a coffee shop and you might get sued by a patent troll or a cease-and-desist commit basically shape down to be paid off. they do not actually want to go through with it. it's just a shakedown. if the government creates a way for you to fight back against them outside of just the financial industry, so businesses can group together or have some sort of method to be able to point out that these patents are overreaching, too
broad, and they would be removed -- it would change the shift. it's everybody. it's not just the tech industry. everybody has to wake up. everybody has to tell someone. the hockey stick of how a aggressive these guys are getting in getting away with it has to be stopped, sooner rather than later. it needs everybody's support to do so. >> i can speak to patents in terms of -- i work and out the algorithms. when you are building an algorithm is a technology company, you are building it because you think it's a good solution. you're not necessarily wondering, i wonder if this is technology someone else is already done? you are coming up with a typically on your own. so, you figure you're the first one writing it. typically at a later stage maybe
you backtrack and try to figure out, are other people doing it? if they are, unless they have a big symbol next to their product, what their product is called, you do not necessarily think about it. i'm normally a huge advocate for open source. i think open source code is one of the most amazing and incredible opportunities we can leverage as developers of technology, developing applications. just a huge of a huge benefit. yes, i believe in patents. there are definitely things that have to be patented. for technology and this particular field, we innovate off of each other. we take one idea and add elements and do different iterations. it stops it dead when you say, i can't. no one can create something having to do with it. but does that speak to the policies that need to danger not
change. i would love for everyone to take a step back and say, do i need to patent this? can this be open source? can we all innovate as a society? i think if we take steps in that direction, maybe the whole problem will be solved. >> look at the stats. the people who do fight these patent trolls and litigate, i read us that -- i read a stat that 92% are successful in beating the litigation. on both sides that tells you something. that tells you that these people are overreaching and the patents that have been issued for all of these things have been too broad. so there needs to be reform on that. obviously if you are fighting that many, you are winning that many. there needs to be reform for and
owners and business owners large and small to have a roadmap and pushed back -- pushed back. >> i read when you go on your iphone and you pull down to refresh, that actual action is a patented action. but it became part of the typical user experience where users on mobile devices learned when you pull down, you are pulling down to refresh. to me, that does not feel like something that should have been a patented user experience. but it was, and it created a lot of controversy. again, i am pushing and advocating. take a second look at what you are filing a patent on. it could create that are innovation and share and create the user experience for different devices. >> you are an idealist. [laughter] >> we have about five minutes
left. i would like to get questions from the audience? or do we have any? there are a couple. there's a microphone in the audience. sit tight. it's coming around. >> companies lost 2.9 million dollars in patent litigation costs -- $2.9 billion? >> [indiscernible] >> those suits to get disproportionately targeted. it is a real problem. >> i understand there is a panel tomorrow i'm just that. >> special preview. >> no, please. you could argue the overarching her view of ces in some ways. god love them.
i have seen some academic studies that showed that has helped failed investments get going again. the founders try multiple times before they get that will -- started founders try multiple times. -- itope, depending on can take 6-10 years to fully discharge bankruptcy. it leaves a stain. it is reputation of. would are your thoughts on bankruptcy? you talked about financial policy and that seems like one of the areas of a national policy that is to startups. >> no one will cop to a? benefit is that
you do not have anyone else's money to lose. in silicon valley, there is a notion that every time you fail, it is a wrong on the bedpost. there's an idealism two centigrade that you keep going and you keep trying. very few founders get right the first time. i did not. i am working on my fourth company. probably started 10 companies in reality full some work and some don't. you can figure out what you need to do better the next time. there is that culture of innovation. we have been in a position where we have been able to get it. we could take the resources we -- and venture into the
have it in another. i love this system or you can keep going, but i think from a funding perspective, it is important to have runway. have a great you idea and say that you need room to get their. what happens to those entrepreneurs. those companies should not get started. it is a huge shame. i hope that answers your question. >> i will go on a lamp and try to answer the. one of my colleagues probably has the most knowledge of business failures in the startup world. data iso know from the that there's is a large regional component to that.
it is very strong in the united states where you will find failures in the bay area being quite frequent. a market that i have been interested in -- it is interested -- interesting to see the failure rates below are. the survival rates are higher. there is a regional component to it. to dive into it, but what are the actual cultural drivers? you can have that help you determine fiscal policy. it may read your analysis of that policy. what we like to look at is capital. one of the scary things about including capital into any market is talent attraction. turnover is very difficult. somebody,re hiring you have to be willing to hire them for a very long time.
that requires a very specific skill set, that his heart. -- that is difficult. it eliminates your ability to change your state of growth to any degree of success. venture capitalists are set up to lose their money. often that is not what the bankruptcy proceedings require. itack of vc entry in europe, is something that the european government should be concerned with. that will happen when they look at employment laws and regulations. the q and ailed at portion. my panel was too interesting. i have gotten the hook. thank you for coming. that was a fascinating this russian. -- discussion. [applause]
>> in his weekly address, president obama outlined efforts to prevent college students and sexual assaults. in the republican address, president obama is urged to take action to create job. >> hi everybody. this week i called members of my candidate -- cabinet to the white house. the crime and the outrage of sexual violence. sexual assault is an affront to our basic decency as humans. it is about all of us. the safety of those we love most , our moms, our wives, our daughters, and our sons. when a child starts to question worthstall for -- self after being abused, or a woman drops out of school